Collaboration in Parametric Design: Analyzing User Interaction during Information Sharing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designers work in groups. They need to share information either synchronously or asynchronously as they work with parametric modeling software, as with all computer-aided design tools. Receiving information from collaborators while working may intrude on their work and thought processes. Little research exists on how the reception of design updates influences designers in their work. Nor do we know much about designer preferences for collaboration. In this paper, we examine how sharing and receiving design updates affects designers performances and preferences. We present a system prototype to share changes on demand or in continuous mode while performing design tasks. A pilot study measuring the preferences of nine pairs of designers for different combinations of control modes and design tasks shows statistically significant differences between the task types and control modes. The types of tasks affect the preferences of users to the types of control modes. In an apparent contradiction, user preference of control modes contradicts task performance time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it